On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 01:24:18AM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 09:36:40AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 01:46:46PM +0800, Zorro Lang wrote: > > > Test nfs and its underlying fs, make sure file size as expected > > > after writting a file, and the speculative allocation space can > > > be shrunken. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Last year I sent a patch to fstests@, but it sometimes fails on the upstream > > > kernel that year: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/fstests/Y3vTbHqT64gsQ573@magnolia/ > > > > > > And we didn't get a proper reason for that, so that patch was blocked. Now > > > I found this case test passed on current upstream linux [1] (after loop > > > running it a whole night). So I think it's time to rebase and re-send this > > > patch to get review. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Zorro > > > > > > [1] > > > FSTYP -- nfs > > > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 xxxx 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023 > > > MKFS_OPTIONS -- xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server > > > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 xxxx.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client > > > > > > nfs/002 4s ... 4s > > > Ran: nfs/002 > > > Passed all 1 tests > > > > > > tests/nfs/002 | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > tests/nfs/002.out | 2 ++ > > > 2 files changed, 48 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100755 tests/nfs/002 > > > create mode 100644 tests/nfs/002.out > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002 b/tests/nfs/002 > > > new file mode 100755 > > > index 00000000..b4b6554c > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tests/nfs/002 > > > @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ > > > +#! /bin/bash > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > +# Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > > > +# > > > +# FS QA Test 002 > > > +# > > > +# Make sure nfs gets expected file size after writting a big sized file. It's > > > +# not only testing nfs, test its underlying fs too. For example a known old bug > > > +# on xfs (underlying fs) caused nfs get larger file size (e.g. 16M) after > > > +# writting 10M data to a file. It's fixed by a series of patches around > > > +# 579b62faa5fb16 ("xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes") > > > > Er... has this been banging around in the trunk for 11 years? ;) > > Yeah, that's an old enough test case :-D I tried to tidy our internal test cases, > felt this case can be in fstests. > > > > > > +# > > > +. ./common/preamble > > > +_begin_fstest auto quick rw > > > + > > > +# real QA test starts here > > > +_supported_fs nfs > > > +# Need a series of patches related with this patch > > > +_fixed_by_kernel_commit 579b62faa5fb16 \ > > > + "xfs: add background scanning to clear eofblocks inodes" > > > +_require_test > > > + > > > +localfile=$TEST_DIR/testfile.$seq > > > +rm -rf $localfile > > > + > > > +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -t -c "pwrite 0 10m" -c "fsync" $localfile >>$seqres.full 2>&1 > > > +block_size=`stat -c '%B' $localfile` > > > +iblocks_expected=$((10 * 1024 * 1024 / $block_size)) > > > +# Try several times for the speculative allocated file size can be shrunken > > > +res=1 > > > +for ((i=0; i<10; i++));do > > > + iblocks_real=`stat -c '%b' $localfile` > > > + if [ "$iblocks_expected" = "$iblocks_real" ];then > > > > What happens if real < expected? Should there be some sort of bail out > > for unexpected things like that? > > Hmm... I never thought that. I saw the real >= expected, is there any > chance to get real < expected? <shrug> Suppose the NFS server is running on top of a filesystem that supports compression and i_blocks as returned by stat reflects that? --D > > > > > + res=0 > > > + break > > > + fi > > > + sleep 10 > > > +done > > > > Though I guess the runtime is capped at ~100s so maybe it doesn't > > matter practically. > > Mostly the test done in several seconds in my testing: > > FSTYP -- nfs > PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 hp-dl360g9-06 6.5.0-rc4 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue Aug 1 15:32:55 EDT 2023 > MKFS_OPTIONS -- hp-dl360g9-06.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o vers=4.2 -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 hp-dl360g9-06.rhts.eng.pek2.redhat.com:/mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-server /mnt/xfstests/scratch/nfs-client > > nfs/002 5s ... 4s > Ran: nfs/002 > Passed all 1 tests Doesn't xfs remove the speculative preallocations every time a write fd is closed? Yes, it does do that: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/155259894034.30230.7188877605950498518.stgit@magnolia/ IOWs, how is this test actually checking the behavior of background blockgc clearing out speculative preallocations? > > (What happens if xfs blockgc only runs every 5 minutes?) > > How can can make that happen? If the 100s isn't enough, is there an upper > limit, or how to make an upper limit? There's no way to tell over NFS... --D > > Thanks, > Zorro > > > > > --D > > > > > +if [ $res -ne 0 ];then > > > + echo "Write $iblocks_expected blocks, but get $iblocks_real blocks" > > > +fi > > > + > > > +echo "Silence is golden" > > > +# success, all done > > > +status=0 > > > +exit > > > diff --git a/tests/nfs/002.out b/tests/nfs/002.out > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 00000000..61705c7c > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tests/nfs/002.out > > > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > > > +QA output created by 002 > > > +Silence is golden > > > -- > > > 2.40.1 > > > > > >
